NedsKid

I didn't realize that meant "mad". I just liked the look of it more than . But, since we are talking about concessions at one of the most profitable airlines (by %, ahem), I'm less than pleased if its true.

The optimizer builds the lines, and its goal is to reduce costs. That does help the company.

It is in the company's interest (read, 'reduce costs') to build pairings with a few duty periods as possible, to have us average no less than 4.5 hours per duty period of flying, no less than 72 hours in a month, and no layovers over 22 hours.

While that's hard to do perfectly, our integration conflict language and '4 days off' (yes, I know its 5) requires us to carry more staffing per aircraft than most every other carrier. So, we have more pilots to do just a bit more flying per aircraft, compared to our competitors.

One solution is to have line pilots fly 90 hours a month, and reserves cover unknown contingencies. But that means that reserves get paid 72 hours a month to do, in the optomizer's eyes, nothing.

So, what's another solution? Reduce the flying the line guys do, and get the reserves to fly more. If they could, they'd have every pilot fly exactly 72 hours a month, no more, no less. Also, build trips so that you have layovers just short enough to not kick in a required extra duty period of pay (22 hours). So, the ideal trip is something like a trip that averages 4.5 hours of flying per duty period, and uses as few duty periods or 22+ hour layovers as possible. The amount of days you're away from base is not relevant, because there's no cost for the company to consider, since our 4.2 TAFB rig isn't strong enough. That's how we can end up with 4 day trips that only have 3 duty periods, but no 22 hour layovers, paying 13.5 hours credit (4.5 x 3). Yes, that often means you have to start day 1 at 00:01 (LAS trip) or during the day, and you'll have a red-eye flight somewhere in there (so you flip-flopped your body clock), and long layovers (but not 22 hours). There's no incentive to not do this, so, that's what you get.

Its all about $. If it doesn't cost the company to do it, they'll do it. Which is why I'm a fan of rigs, particularly Southwest's 5.5 min day and .61/hour duty rig. I don't want the rigs to kick in and to get tons of soft time. That means the company is paying for labor its not getting, weakening the financials of the company. I have no objection to flying 90 hours a month (vacation and sick will keep me below 1000 for the year), I just want to incentivize the company to have me do this 90 hours of flying in 15 days, so I fly 6 hours a day (above the 5.5 required by my rig). Right now, the company can fly you 77 hours a month in 17 days. If we had a 5.5 min day, that would pay 93.5 hours of credit (which would incentivize the company to build more efficient trips, or give you more days off, to reduce this cost). But, we don't, so . . . surprise, 4.52 hours a day average, just above the 4.5/day that is the goal.

Look at a bid packet: 30 days, 17 on, 13 off, 77 hours of credit. Coincidence, or optimized to reduce pilot costs?